•  
  •  
 
University of Memphis Law Review

Abstract

The threat of implicit biases in people’s decision making is increasing. Unlike explicit biases, implicit biases are more covert and harder to identify. Research on implicit bias has increased substantially over the past few decades due to increasing disparities within the legal and criminal justice systems. Disparities result in minorities and underrepresented populations suffering due to the unjust decision-making of courtroom players. Previous research on implicit bias states that the more education a person receives about their biases, the less likely those biases will impact their decisions. To combat these disparities, we recommend implementing implicit bias training to reduce implicit bias in the courtroom. We conducted a content analysis of survey data regarding judges’ perceptions of implicit bias training programs. Common themes found in the data included issues with the survey question proposed to the judges, personal attributes, minimization of bias, past experiences/beliefs, and general suggestions. Generally, judges were supportive of implicit bias trainings, with noted limitations. Some judges were open and willing to engage in implicit bias trainings, but other judges noted that implicit biases do not exist generally in society or specifically in their courtroom. As a future recommendation, judges expressed the need to investigate attorneys’ perceptions of implicit bias trainings. The current research will be important in developing future implicit bias trainings for judges. Other training avenues, such as panel discussions and community forums, might be combined with educational efforts to increase the effectiveness of implicit bias training, or these trainings can be recommended to the Bar Association to be implemented in attorneys’ own training.

Share

COinS
 

Archival Statement

This item was created or digitized prior to April 24, 2026, or is a reproduction of legacy media created before that date. It is preserved in its original, unmodified state specifically for research, reference, or historical recordkeeping. This material is part of a digital archival collection and is not utilized for current University instruction, programs, or active public communication. In accordance with the ADA Title II Final Rule, the University Libraries provides accessible versions of archival materials upon request. To request an accommodation for this item, please submit an accessibility request form.

 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.